Randomly killing someone who will probably be an ordo just to say we did something doesn't sit well with me, but if that's what we as a group want to do, I don't have any stronger objections than that I think it will be a waste of a number. I don't think we're in too much danger of killing a Gifted, so it's certainly not the end of the world to lynch someone toDay. That being said, I have no strong feelings as to who is on the chopping block, either. I haven't found anyone to be suspicious. 2/5 of the village have yet to post, but I don't know that I feel better about lynching someone who hasn't said anything either, though.

EDIT: xed with Eonwe, Zil, and Boro

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

First of all, as most most people seem to agree, I think that a no-lynch Day 1 is a Day wasted. More importantly, it's a free headstart for the wolves (and the EW this game) on kills. Even in the (extremely) unlikely scenario that the EW didn't turn a wolf last Night, that still gives the Dark Side a free pass. So definitely up for a lynching today.

I don't see it as a free headstart. Quite the opposite, we almost certainly double the number of killed innocents if we lynch today. When we have basically nothing to go on, this is a risk not worth taking. I wouldn't eliminate someone today just to look busy.

Well, hello. I have read through and got distracted looking at old games.
Anyway all I can say so far is Loslote is pinging my radar like mad. Maybe unfair but various alarm bells triggered. Maybe a bit too aware of potential evil strategy but then querying one of the few criteria even I in my dippy perimenopausal state grasped seemed odd. Or at least the sort of thing I was righteously lynched for in the past.

And the context of that suspicion makes the suggestion of no lynch a bit convenient. Anyway hope a few more bods will surface before voting is necessary. I don't want to leave it too late my insomnia has been replaced by near narcolepsy. It is true what they say about aging. Not fun but interesting.

__________________

“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”

We've got only a couple hours to deadline and a lot of folks not here. I'm worried we're they're not present because they didn't realize we had started? If anyone can reach out on social media perhaps?

I wouldn't vote anyone not here. The biggest issue of the day is to vote or not, that being said while I'm all for voting I'm not sure I can do it in good conscience with so many absent...

I don't see it as a free headstart. Quite the opposite, we almost certainly double the number of killed innocents if we lynch today. When we have basically nothing to go on, this is a risk not worth taking. I wouldn't eliminate someone today just to look busy.

Yeah, but that's always the case, isn't it? It's not a matter of 'looking busy', it just has always seemed wrong to not take advantage of the opportunity (slim though it may be) to get a baddie. And will the circumstances toMorrow be much different?

Well, I'm saying that it's not always the case. There's usually 3 targets out there instead of (probably) 1 - I don't count the EW in this because we could just as well pick the GW and disadvantage him or her that way. Also, those targets could be linked somehow. Here we have no links. And yes, I think that tomorrow will be slightly different, because we'll probably have a kill to work with.

Ok, so just in the interest of balance (and to think through the idea properly for myself), I have thought of two reasons against needing to vote today.

First of all, the fact is that the EW gets to turn 4 wolves. That means that unless they get duelled before they can, it is possible for them to replenish the number of wolves. That said, the counterpoint to this is they might be found out before then (and an attempted lynch would aid this).

The other point is in terms of Dead Thread tactics. If we lynch someone now, we have the following situation:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 1 in DT
D2: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N3: 3 in DT (1/3 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 5 in DT (3/5 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

This means that at each Night, there are 2 unknowns. Of course, if we now agree to a certain rule (e.g. always vote for the unknown that's spent the longest time in the DT), then it could be easier, but there's always the chance of a wasted Night vote early on with 2 unknown wolves overpowering the general vote, and there's also a risk of wolves messing stuff up in moments where people would be tempted to break this rule, e.g. when a Visitor is there.

If we didn't lynch someone today, we'd have:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 0 in DT
D2: 1 in DT
N3: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 3 in DT (3/3 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

Of course, this is super hypothetical and I can imagine a few situations where it would break down (e.g. Ranger save, Wizards' duel, etc.), but just thought I'd put it out there.

I do also think it would be good to have some protocol in place about what should be done in the Dead Thread so that when the Visitors do visit, they can actually be useful to the Living.

I had wanted to do a "list" in the classic way (impressions about individual people), but realised there is not really very much to go with. I mean, Day 1, sure, but originally this one started fairly nicely and I hoped for active people; then it all sort of quieted down again. But now it seems to be picking up again, and nice to see more people appearing still.

Also, right now, I am still thinking the no-vote might be an option to consider. The disadvantage is that we lose one lynch, though the counter-argument to that is that anyway new WWs will appear in future Days, so it is not really anything that would help in that regard. The fact is that lynching a Wolf would take one "bullet" away from the Evil Wizard (but then again we enter the jungle of "IF" we lynch a Wolf etc.) But I think Eomer said it nicely that we should not just "try to look busy". The danger of mislynch is a real one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I do also think it would be good to have some protocol in place about what should be done in the Dead Thread so that when the Visitors do visit, they can actually be useful to the Living.

And this. This, and hundred times this. I remember very well how it went in the last game where we had a Dead thread, and it was a disaster. Such as when the village switched halfway through what did which votes for whom mean, after people already started casting votes on the Dead thread.

But yes. Something like always saying "if X is innocent, empower Y". I think it worked last time surprisingly well (when the Living didn't mess up the definition).

__________________"But it is not your own Shire," said Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

I think Eönwë has a good way of looking at it - not so much do we think we have a shot at killing a wolf toDay, but rather how do we want to populate the Dead Thread. We are massively unlikely to kill anyone other than an ordo toDay, so the question becomes, do we want to put the first ordo in the Dead Thread toDay or let the baddies do it overNight? Since we don't know when EW is going to make more wolves, it's hard to numerically play out scenarios, but in a general sense, the Dead Thread is going to be one of our only solid sources of information. According to Eönwë's analysis, the first time the Dead can do something is on Day Two, when they vote to strengthen a vote. If we don't lynch anyone toDay, the first time they'll be able to do something is on Night Three, when they can reveal someone's role. To me, it seems more useful for the Dead to find out roles than it is for them to empower a vote, especially in the case that they have yet to find out any roles (i.e., on Day Two).

EDIT: xed with Legate

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

I do also think it would be good to have some protocol in place about what should be done in the Dead Thread so that when the Visitors do visit, they can actually be useful to the Living.~Eonwe

In previous Dueling Wizards, before there were visitors, we had come up with a way for the Dead to use the "empowering" vote as a means to communicate information to the living.

As an example, we would say "If you uncovered Day 1's lynch was a wolf empower Boro's vote on Day 2. If Day 1 lynch is innocent empower Eonwe's vote."

We lag a day behind on the info, and sometimes the dead aren't so cooperative to take orders from the living, but that was how could get relayed before when there was no visitor role. It runs of the risk of being misintrepretted/too many dead baddies able to pass along bad intel (but then again, a lot of dead baddies trying to muck up the dead thread means the living is doing quite well getting rid of them).

Edit: crossed with Legate and Lottie

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

And this. This, and hundred times this. I remember very well how it went in the last game where we had a Dead thread, and it was a disaster. Such as when the village switched halfway through what did which votes for whom mean, after people already started casting votes on the Dead thread.

But yes. Something like always saying "if X is innocent, empower Y". I think it worked last time surprisingly well (when the Living didn't mess up the definition).

Not being part of a game like this before, I'm trying to savvy up on things that are new.

So, the Dead can always read the Living Thread...so they'll be looking at it for ideas of who to empower. How do they know whom on the Living Thread can be trusted?

So, the Dead can always read the Living Thread...so they'll be looking at it for ideas of who to empower. How do they know whom on the Living Thread can be trusted?

x/d with Boro

Yes, they just can't post in the Living thread. This time though, the visitors are a new role to Dueling Wizards, so they can return and have a much more concrete communication. But who knows if and when the visitors role gets used. As Legate said, it's been surprisingly successful to use the Dead's empowering vote as a way to communicate what roles the Dead uncover to the living.

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

And I recall other safety nets so the Dead doesn't send faulty information...like

"If you don't trust Boro to empower his vote/you don't know the role of (insert dead person)/don't want to give mixed up info than empower Inzil's vote"...which lets the Living know that "ok the Dead don't have the info to give us we asked for"

__________________
Normalizing "changing your opinion, when presented with new information" one post at a time.

In terms of actual suspicious behaviour, while my last post was intended as a joke, Lommy's comments on Lottie's "[eyebrow-raising]" behaviour could actually be a classic case of the "this seems suspicious but I'm not actually suspecting you" wolf-tactic to sow distrust early on and have evidence of early suspicion to fall back on if necessary. While I do agree that it's best practice not to discuss the evil side's tactics too much, I also think Lottie was right to point out that it's not necessarily the case that a wolf will be added each Night. Though, ok, talking about how this might differ from the GW and what strategies might underpin these differences might be a bit much.

I was, as usual, thinking while typing. I didn't like Lottie discussing what are reasonable strategies for the EW, so my brain went "suspicious", but as you can see towards the end of that paragraph, I kinda reasoned it would have been a weird/bold move from either a wolf or the EW to openly speculate about the EW's startegies in her very first post. HOWEVER, to do a Lommy flip flop now that I think of it, it *might* not be so weird from an EW. Like sure, she'd be drawing attention to herself, but as the EW would be thinking a lot about the EW tactics it might feel natural to her to post about it without thinking much? And for another flip flop: I always suspect Lottie on Day1 so I'm gonna give her the benefit of doubt this time. Probably. But she's really the only one who stands out to me so far, even if it's rather as "someone whose actions caught my attention" as opposed to "someone who's a likely wolf/EW".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

And the worst part is, even if we did get the Evil Wizard toDay, they'd still have 2 more Nights before they could be taken out by the Good Wizard, by which point they could've worked all sorts of mischief.

But that isn't a reason not to try to bag him today. If we can guarantee the GW can take him out on Day3 if she wishes, then that's amazing. (Yes the EW is a 'he' and the GW is a 'she'. For disambiguation. And feminism. )

I'm all for making up a way for dead thread communication, but it probably isn't the most urgent issue since the DL is approaching?

PSA: Nogrod probably doesn't know the game has started since he hasn't been here and it's 1.30 am Finnish time. I meant to text him earlier but I forgot but I did now so he should be around for Day2 I hope! I'll send Sally and Lalaith facebook messages too even though it's a bit late for that too...

Okay: next up: a list to organize my thoughts and a vote. It IS late here.

__________________Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep

Not being part of a game like this before, I'm trying to savvy up on things that are new.

So, the Dead can always read the Living Thread...so they'll be looking at it for ideas of who to empower. How do they know whom on the Living Thread can be trusted?

It's simple, we just somehow figure out - it can be quite random - to make a list, such as for example when there are two dead people, we say "if you have determined that 1 is innocent, vote for X, if 1 is guilty, vote for Y, if 2 is innocent, vote for Z..." Preferably, we try to make it so that the people who are being voted for do not have any super-major impact on the final outcome of the vote (as far as it can be assumed in advance... but really, I think that somehow never came as problem in the last game). Yes, there is a risk of misuse, but based on experience, it was very small. I really believe the only time it got messed up was when the Living decided sometime halfway through the Day to change which vote meant what. Plus we had evil Mac (and others, but mainly him) on the dead thread, but he mostly trolled and didn't harm anybody in the end.

Anyway. I am soon planning to go to sleep. Probably won't stay until the very DL. I think I will in any case try to post some summary on people from my perspective, but otherwise just hope that as many people as possible still post meanwhile, especially those who haven't appeared yet.

EDIT: x-ed with some Boros and Lommys

__________________"But it is not your own Shire," said Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

And this. This, and hundred times this. I remember very well how it went in the last game where we had a Dead thread, and it was a disaster. Such as when the village switched halfway through what did which votes for whom mean, after people already started casting votes on the Dead thread.

But yes. Something like always saying "if X is innocent, empower Y". I think it worked last time surprisingly well (when the Living didn't mess up the definition).

Ah, I'd totally forgotten to consider the regular communication through empowerment of votes. I meant to add a caveat about how the whole thing was only relevant to visitors, but in that case, this is actually a lot more important, since the Dead Thread is going to be the source of truth for the living.

In that case, I'd like to propose the following:

We don't lynch toDay.

Each night, vote to find out the role of the person who has been around in the Dead Thread longest whose role is unknown. For special cases, see addendum below.

Each Day, take an alphabetical list of the full usernames of the living. On odd Days, order them A->Z, on even Days Z->A.

If the person whose identity was checked was good, empower the vote of someone in the first half of the alphabetical list (one of the known innocents should state who at the beginning of the Day), if they were evil, empower the vote of someone in the second half. For the purposes of this vote, if there is a username exactly in the middle, it counts as if it were in the first half.

Addendum - special casesNight after a Wizard's Duel: Test the identity of the person whose username appears first in the alphabet.Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

And I recall other safety nets so the Dead doesn't send faulty information...like

"If you don't trust Boro to empower his vote/you don't know the role of (insert dead person)/don't want to give mixed up info than empower Inzil's vote"...which lets the Living know that "ok the Dead don't have the info to give us we asked for"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It's simple, we just somehow figure out - it can be quite random - to make a list, such as for example when there are two dead people, we say "if you have determined that 1 is innocent, vote for X, if 1 is guilty, vote for Y, if 2 is innocent, vote for Z..." Preferably, we try to make it so that the people who are being voted for do not have any super-major impact on the final outcome of the vote (as far as it can be assumed in advance... but really, I think that somehow never came as problem in the last game). Yes, there is a risk of misuse, but based on experience, it was very small. I really believe the only time it got messed up was when the Living decided sometime halfway through the Day to change which vote meant what. Plus we had evil Mac (and others, but mainly him) on the dead thread, but he mostly trolled and didn't harm anybody in the end.

Ah, ok. It'll take at least three Dead to be useful that way, though. Since, as Kuru noted, just two dead could vote to reveal one another.

Eönwë's plan is a perfectly fine one, and barring major objections, it might be a good idea to just adopt it as the default moving forward to avoid confusion. If everyone's arguing, it could be hard for the Dead to be clear, so I think it would be better to pick a plan that will work and stick with it than to debate about what the best possible plan would be. However:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.

I didn't think the Hunter could be evil, shouldn't it be hunted first, then hunter?

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

Ah, I'd totally forgotten to consider the regular communication through empowerment of votes. I meant to add a caveat about how the whole thing was only relevant to visitors, but in that case, this is actually a lot more important, since the Dead Thread is going to be the source of truth for the living.

In that case, I'd like to propose the following:

We don't lynch toDay.

Each night, vote to find out the role of the person who has been around in the Dead Thread longest whose role is unknown. For special cases, see addendum below.

Each Day, take an alphabetical list of the full usernames of the living. On odd Days, order them A->Z, on even Days Z->A.

If the person whose identity was checked was good, empower the vote of someone in the first half of the alphabetical list (one of the known innocents should state who at the beginning of the Day), if they were evil, empower the vote of someone in the second half. For the purposes of this vote, if there is a username exactly in the middle, it counts as if it were in the first half.

Addendum - special casesNight after a Wizard's Duel: Test the identity of the person whose username appears first in the alphabet.Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

Obviously, you're trying to cause my brain to explode, when I don't even have the benefit of coffee.

We've got only a couple hours to deadline and a lot of folks not here. I'm worried we're they're not present because they didn't realize we had started? I

I'm here now. Blasted Kuru, he throws a fantastic party, I'll give you that, but instead of doing his hostly duty with warm showers, hot coffee and cold compresses for our poor heads the next day, he expects us to nurse our hangovers in the bowels of some ghastly charnel house. Bah.
I've been reading over everyone's comments and here are my thoughts on those comments.

Quote:

ut how would an aborted kill on the Good Wizard look to the wolves? Could they figure his identity that way?

(Inzil)
It would be for the EW to figure this out, wolves are merely his pawns...but yes, that could play into his hands.

Quote:

but rather how do we want to populate the Dead Thread

(Lottie) yes I was wondering that too.

Quote:

Now it's time for me to say that weird thing no one likes.

(Morsul) Actually I was half nodding about what you're saying about gifteds there but maybe that's just because I haven't got my head round the rules of this particular game yet.

Quote:

I concur that it's probably one of each, but the rules would seem to allow for other scenarios

(Nerwen )
This I really am scratching my head about but again, maybe it's because I haven't got my head around this game yet.

Quote:

If anyone can reach out on social media perhaps?

Who is still left to post? Nogs, Sally, Shasta and Percenvia I think? I can stick something on facebook.

Ah, ok. It'll take at least three Dead to be useful that way, though. Since, as Kuru noted, just two dead could vote to reveal one another.

I assume a Dead person could vote for themselves, and I guess we'll have to trust them to be reasonable and both vote for the first person lynched (since if we don't lynch toDay and the first person is a wolf kill, we can assume they were not themselves a wolf).

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

Eönwë's plan is a perfectly fine one, and barring major objections, it might be a good idea to just adopt it as the default moving forward to avoid confusion. If everyone's arguing, it could be hard for the Dead to be clear, so I think it would be better to pick a plan that will work and stick with it than to debate about what the best possible plan would be. However:

I didn't think the Hunter could be evil, shouldn't it be hunted first, then hunter?

Oh wait, good point. If the narration is clear about who is who, then the dead should not look at the hunter at all, as they are a known innocent.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

I assume a Dead person could vote for themselves, and I guess we'll have to trust them to be reasonable and both vote for the first person lynched (since if we don't lynch toDay and the first person is a wolf kill, we can assume they were not themselves a wolf).

Yeah, if the first unknown doesn't vote for themself, I think they can safely be assumed to be evil.

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

Each night, vote to find out the role of the person who has been around in the Dead Thread longest whose role is unknown. For special cases, see addendum below.

Each Day, take an alphabetical list of the full usernames of the living. On odd Days, order them A->Z, on even Days Z->A.

If the person whose identity was checked was good, empower the vote of someone in the first half of the alphabetical list (one of the known innocents should state who at the beginning of the Day), if they were evil, empower the vote of someone in the second half. For the purposes of this vote, if there is a username exactly in the middle, it counts as if it were in the first half.

Addendum - special casesNight after a Wizard's Duel: Test the identity of the person whose username appears first in the alphabet.Night after a Hunter kill: Test the hunter first, then the hunted.A visitor is present: We will assume the usual. Obviously if the Visitor returns with new rules then we can implement those.

I think we have the new phantom here!

Seriously though: yes. Good. I'm too tired to think whether the special cases rules make sense, so I'll get back to that tomorrow.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

x:ed with everyone I predict

__________________Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

It's a little lawyer-y, to be sure. But I think it gives both the village and the dead enough flexibility while allowing for clear communication.

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

Well, that's what this was about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eönwë

If we lynch someone now, we have the following situation:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 1 in DT
D2: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N3: 3 in DT (1/3 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 5 in DT (3/5 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

This means that at each Night, there are 2 unknowns. Of course, if we now agree to a certain rule (e.g. always vote for the unknown that's spent the longest time in the DT), then it could be easier, but there's always the chance of a wasted Night vote early on with 2 unknown wolves overpowering the general vote, and there's also a risk of wolves messing stuff up in moments where people would be tempted to break this rule, e.g. when a Visitor is there.

If we didn't lynch someone today, we'd have:
N1: 0 in DT
D1: 0 in DT
N2: 0 in DT
D2: 1 in DT
N3: 2 in DT (1/2 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
D3: 3 in DT (3/3 known roles) - can vote to strengthen a vote
N4: 4 in DT (3/4 known roles) - can vote to find out a role
... etc.

Of course, this is super hypothetical and I can imagine a few situations where it would break down (e.g. Ranger save, Wizards' duel, etc.), but just thought I'd put it out there.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think we should already start lynching toDay. I'm gonna vote within ten minutes unless someone gives me a very good reason not to. "Caution" or "odds" is not one.

We don't need a third person in the dead thread. Having the person first lynched in the dead thread does not enable us to gain any additional information. However, if you feel like you have a strong enough suspicion to vote on, definitely go for it. I don't have any such strong suspicions, and therefore I will not be voting to lynch anyone, since I don't think doing so helps us unless we are confident that the person we lynch is a probable wolf.

EDIT: xed with Eonwe

__________________
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.

Lommie, I am sure you mean well and no doubt some were generally innocent of the start - maybe if they were expecting a role pm to trigger an email notification rather than checking the board not realising that only special roles would be notified. However since Kuru stated he was waiting on the selected wizards to confirm their acceptance, saying you didn't know it had started then indicates that that person isn't a wizard. So perhaps need to be careful with this meta info. Pinch of salt or assume knew but detained...

__________________

“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”

We don't need a third person in the dead thread. Having the person first lynched in the dead thread does not enable us to gain any additional information. However, if you feel like you have a strong enough suspicion to vote on, definitely go for it. I don't have any such strong suspicions, and therefore I will not be voting to lynch anyone, since I don't think doing so helps us unless we are confident that the person we lynch is a probable wolf.

Agreed. Also, while it would be sub-optimal to have the 1:2 known:unknown ratio on N3, the only way it can really be messed up is if we've lynched 2 wolves, in which case we're probably doing well enough that we can afford to mess up a few signals early on. And hopefully the Visitors will clarify if that's been the case.

I was, as usual, thinking while typing. I didn't like Lottie discussing what are reasonable strategies for the EW, so my brain went "suspicious", but as you can see towards the end of that paragraph, I kinda reasoned it would have been a weird/bold move from either a wolf or the EW to openly speculate about the EW's startegies in her very first post. HOWEVER, to do a Lommy flip flop now that I think of it, it *might* not be so weird from an EW. Like sure, she'd be drawing attention to herself, but as the EW would be thinking a lot about the EW tactics it might feel natural to her to post about it without thinking much? And for another flip flop: I always suspect Lottie on Day1 so I'm gonna give her the benefit of doubt this time. Probably. But she's really the only one who stands out to me so far, even if it's rather as "someone whose actions caught my attention" as opposed to "someone who's a likely wolf/EW".

Okay, this was about the most confusing thing I have read during the whole Day. To quote a classic, "what dost thou wish to say, Chieftain?"

Anyway.

Nerwen - seems like her classic self, posts in an informative way. No reason to suspect her of anything intoward here.Inzil - Basically also fairly classic Zil. I don't think there's anything out of the norm here.Loslote - seems like having a bit more drive than I expected. Is contributing, however, and her initial idea about the no-vote had some good points behind it.Boro - to be honest, he is a bit all over the place, as in, the in-character posting really surprised me from him. I am not sure what to think about it. But otherwise, his normal contributions to the discussion were there as well and those were normal.Shasta - sadly absent EDIT: wait no, good! Welcome.Eomer - had some good points there. I really think his arguments about the lynching are valid. But even objectively, reminds me of his usual self.Morsul - I could re-quote his signature... although not really; I actually think he sounds very responsible and not unreliable at all. Otherwise he resonates with his classic self. I like how he's engaged in the debate.Lommy - feels normal? Had a bit noncommital attitude at first, but maybe that was just because of the briefness of her post and the circumstances she posted from (i.e., quickly), then, she came with that super-underipherable thing above. But that's about it for now.Lalaith - EDIT: ha! Also just appeared. Good.Mith - good that she appeared. I would like to see more from her to make an opinion, though.Eönwë - when I originally wanted to start making notes about people, I wanted to write down that he was "very systematic". That was even before all the charts he posted now. Anyway, he's again one of those who seem to take this game very responsibly (same as Morsul, for example).Nogrod - even more sadly absent, though whispers from beyond this canyon say that he's been somewhat busy lately.Pervencia Took - likewise absent, I just hope she didn't get scared and run away since this was meant to be her first game.Brinniel - appeared and contributed to the debate, but nothing very detailed there either. Would like to see more as well.

That's about it for initial impressions, however. Nothing much altogether.

Off to check what happened meanwhile...

EDIT: X-ed with a bunch of people. But nice to see posts.

__________________"But it is not your own Shire," said Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out."

- I DO think that the EW is likely not one of the first people who offered up insight on the game, for this reason; the EW is the only evil right now that it's incredibly bad for the wolf team to lose. And it's useless to say that they aren't "lost" if they're lynched - they're outed, and that's just as bad.

- I DO think the EW is likely to wait a bit to see which way the village wind is blowing before they offer up opinions, for the reason stated above.

- I DO NOT have the current IRL capacity to look back and see who matches what I posited in the first two points. I will get to it as I can, should I be alive to do so.

- I DO think that Boro is a goober and that Nerwen is gorgeous.

That is all for now.

__________________
Shasta– ... However, if he's innocent his famous clairvoyant powers must be taking the week off. Meanwhile, the Night-kills have been awfully effective– almost like we're dealing with a psychic wolf... - Nerwen, WW LXXV

Location: Polishing the stars. Well, somebody has to do it; they're looking a little bit dull.

Posts: 2,980

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lalaith

Is it a fine plan? Maybe. I read over it and felt like I've been asked to find a five pound note in the corner of a round room....just read Inzil's comment though and feel a bit better, I was starting to feel like the group dunce.

No, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it too.

I honestly haven't really factored in the Dead Thread, though it now seems to be a large part of the discussion. I have no recollection of ever playing a WW game with a Dead Thread before, so I'm sure how it all works. As complicated as it seems, I think communication of some sort is a good idea.

Agh I wanted to go to sleep!!! But like if someone's gonna vote I want to vote too! And I don't think we should skip the lynch. Also I don't think it's harmful to lynch anyone toDay when it comes to dead thread communication, it's just not as beneficial as it could be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mith

Lommie, I am sure you mean well and no doubt some were generally innocent of the start - maybe if they were expecting a role pm to trigger an email notification rather than checking the board not realising that only special roles would be notified. However since Kuru stated he was waiting on the selected wizards to confirm their acceptance, saying you didn't know it had started then indicates that that person isn't a wizard. So perhaps need to be careful with this meta info. Pinch of salt or assume knew but detained...

I don't know of anyone not knowing about the game starting. I just assumed, and thought better to message them just in case. But I agree we shouldn't draw any conclusions based on that, or take "I didn't know the game started" at face value.

edit: xed with Brinn

__________________Like the stars chase the sun, over the glowing hill I will conquer
Blood is running deep, some things never sleep

Agreed. Also, while it would be sub-optimal to have the 1:2 known:unknown ratio on N3, the only way it can really be messed up is if we've lynched 2 wolves, in which case we're probably doing well enough that we can afford to mess up a few signals early on. And hopefully the Visitors will clarify if that's been the case.

Just to clarify, what I mean here is that by N3, in order for there to be a mutiny, both lynches must have been wolves. After that, unless we somehow continue to lynch only wolves, the side of good should come out on top.

On which note, I think there's another addendum: If there has been such a 'mutiny', ignore it in the next empowerment (or things will get even more confusing).